Dude, juggler's the one who says to compliment a woman for something other than her looks. Mystery is the guy who says to ask a woman what she has other than her looks.

And actually, I think that some of mystery's individual suggestions are good, though some are not. But as you know, he has a very elaborate sequential system that overall will screw up guys who try to implement it. I have never seen somebody use all or most of the M3 system and get good results with it

(06-01-2011 05:50 AM)Brian Wrote:  he's the first person to innovate "calibration".

Mystery's micro calibration is about punishing bad behavior and rewarding good... already asked Mark about that... he said that it's bullshit... do a search

or maybe we aren't talking about the same thing?

Re: Qualification. I agree qualification is crucial and pretty universal. But it's taught by just about everyone in different ways and different guises. It's also been around since Dale Carnegie and Napoleon Hill as an effective way to get people to like you. I agree with Jon, I like a lot of Mystery's individual bits of advice, but I think the M3 model as a whole is a load of garbage that ends up confusing guys as much as helping them.

It also encourages them to focus on things that aren't very important (openers, DHV stories, what you're saying), while downplaying what is important (looks/lifestyle, aggression, persistence, emotional connection).

I don't doubt MM helps some guys. I've found that the guys who get most out of it are guys who were not very socially calibrated prior to MM. Perhaps you were one of those guys Brian and it worked well for you. In the same way, RSD tends to help guys who are already very socially calibrated but just under-estimate their own value. But either way, both schools of thought cater to one minority of guys well while screwing up an entirely different minority.

I should add, that when I joined the community in 2005, there was really nothing except Mystery Method (this is back when RSD taught routines too). At the time, getting a lay a month was considered pretty amazing results. I don't think this was a coincidence.

I tried MM for my first 3-4 months and I got absolutely horrible results. I pretty much never got further than 5 minutes into any set. When I switched to just approaching girls and talking to them normally, my results shot up quite a bit. I actually started to get some phone numbers. Then from that starting point, I began experimenting and adding things on my own, which has slowly resulted in my body of work on this site.

When I first started approaching I was using the Lovesystems method, which is pretty much rehashed Mystery Method. The whole concept of gaming women linearly was very confusing. I would get really confused about the stage of the interaction I was in. I didn't know if I had enough attraction, or if I qualified enough to move into comfort. It just overcomplicated the whole process of meeting women.

Love systems was good for getting me started. Having a couple of routines was a big confidence boost. The thing is, those routines were pretty much time fillers. They weren't the reason I was attracting girls or not attracting girls.

In my opinion, I do better when I don't have to try to remember a bunch of techniques when I am talking to a girl. As long as I follow a few simple guidelines, I end up doing ok.

(06-01-2011 04:11 AM)Jon Wrote:  Is this even true? I actually have never met or seen anybody do mystery method well, with about one exception.

I've definitely seen atleast 2 guys who are really good with MM. I witnessed one guy's development personally. He went out every single night for 2 months straight. He studied only two books - Venusian artists handbook and The Game. He got really, really good in two months. Now as you say, he probably would have gotten good anyhow, but he did use MM to get good. So it is possible.

Qualification is important? Never really understood why....can someone explain why? I have never used it and know nobody who has used it personally, who gets laid. I am not asking this rhetorically or to start an Keyboard Jockey fight.

Qualification - telling her why you like her besides her looks. So I think we all use it.

I´m confused, isn´t qualification to ask questions, whether she is your fitting your high standards or not (e.g. "I like it adventurous girls. Are you adventurous?").

(06-01-2011 08:06 PM)8_ball Wrote:  I´m confused, isn´t qualification to ask questions, whether she is your fitting your high standards or not (e.g. "I like it adventurous girls. Are you adventurous?").

Which is the same thing as telling her you like her for other reasons than her looks... It can be done through questions or statements. But the point is that you express why you like her, or express that she meets a certain criteria of yours.

(06-01-2011 08:19 PM)Mark Wrote:  [quote='8_ball' pid='3115' dateline='1306922819']
But the point is that you express why you like her, or express that she meets a certain criteria of yours.

I think there is a big difference, if I compliment a girl like: "you know why I like you? because I have fun with you and you make me laugh ", than to ask her whether she fulfills my high standards. I think, only the former option is a sign of that you are the challenge (and that she is doing good) and that you have high standards.